Generating Informative Conclusions for Argumentative Texts
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2106.01064v1
- Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2021 10:35:59 GMT
- Title: Generating Informative Conclusions for Argumentative Texts
- Authors: Shahbaz Syed, Khalid Al-Khatib, Milad Alshomary, Henning Wachsmuth,
and Martin Potthast
- Abstract summary: The purpose of an argumentative text is to support a certain conclusion.
An explicit conclusion makes for a good candidate summary of an argumentative text.
This is especially true if the conclusion is informative, emphasizing specific concepts from the text.
- Score: 32.3103908466811
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: The purpose of an argumentative text is to support a certain conclusion. Yet,
they are often omitted, expecting readers to infer them rather. While
appropriate when reading an individual text, this rhetorical device limits
accessibility when browsing many texts (e.g., on a search engine or on social
media). In these scenarios, an explicit conclusion makes for a good candidate
summary of an argumentative text. This is especially true if the conclusion is
informative, emphasizing specific concepts from the text. With this paper we
introduce the task of generating informative conclusions: First,
Webis-ConcluGen-21 is compiled, a large-scale corpus of 136,996 samples of
argumentative texts and their conclusions. Second, two paradigms for conclusion
generation are investigated; one extractive, the other abstractive in nature.
The latter exploits argumentative knowledge that augment the data via control
codes and finetuning the BART model on several subsets of the corpus. Third,
insights are provided into the suitability of our corpus for the task, the
differences between the two generation paradigms, the trade-off between
informativeness and conciseness, and the impact of encoding argumentative
knowledge. The corpus, code, and the trained models are publicly available.
Related papers
- A School Student Essay Corpus for Analyzing Interactions of Argumentative Structure and Quality [12.187586364960758]
We present a German corpus of 1,320 essays from school students of two age groups.
Each essay has been manually annotated for argumentative structure and quality on multiple levels of granularity.
We propose baseline approaches to argument mining and essay scoring, and we analyze interactions between both tasks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-03T07:31:53Z) - Natural Language Decompositions of Implicit Content Enable Better Text
Representations [56.85319224208865]
We introduce a method for the analysis of text that takes implicitly communicated content explicitly into account.
We use a large language model to produce sets of propositions that are inferentially related to the text that has been observed.
Our results suggest that modeling the meanings behind observed language, rather than the literal text alone, is a valuable direction for NLP.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-23T23:45:20Z) - Synthetically generated text for supervised text analysis [5.71097144710995]
I provide a conceptual overview of text generation, guidance on when researchers should prefer different techniques for generating synthetic text, a discussion of ethics, and a simple technique for improving the quality of synthetic text.
I demonstrate the usefulness of synthetic text with three applications: generating synthetic tweets describing the fighting in Ukraine, synthetic news articles describing specified political events for training an event detection system, and a multilingual corpus of populist manifesto statements for training a sentence-level populism classifier.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-03-28T14:55:13Z) - PropSegmEnt: A Large-Scale Corpus for Proposition-Level Segmentation and
Entailment Recognition [63.51569687229681]
We argue for the need to recognize the textual entailment relation of each proposition in a sentence individually.
We propose PropSegmEnt, a corpus of over 45K propositions annotated by expert human raters.
Our dataset structure resembles the tasks of (1) segmenting sentences within a document to the set of propositions, and (2) classifying the entailment relation of each proposition with respect to a different yet topically-aligned document.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-12-21T04:03:33Z) - MURMUR: Modular Multi-Step Reasoning for Semi-Structured Data-to-Text
Generation [102.20036684996248]
We propose MURMUR, a neuro-symbolic modular approach to text generation from semi-structured data with multi-step reasoning.
We conduct experiments on two data-to-text generation tasks like WebNLG and LogicNLG.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-12-16T17:36:23Z) - TRIE++: Towards End-to-End Information Extraction from Visually Rich
Documents [51.744527199305445]
This paper proposes a unified end-to-end information extraction framework from visually rich documents.
Text reading and information extraction can reinforce each other via a well-designed multi-modal context block.
The framework can be trained in an end-to-end trainable manner, achieving global optimization.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-07-14T08:52:07Z) - Explaining Latent Representations with a Corpus of Examples [72.50996504722293]
We propose SimplEx: a user-centred method that provides example-based explanations with reference to a freely selected set of examples.
SimplEx uses the corpus to improve the user's understanding of the latent space with post-hoc explanations.
We show that SimplEx empowers the user by highlighting relevant patterns in the corpus that explain model representations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-10-28T17:59:06Z) - Semi-Supervised Cleansing of Web Argument Corpora [20.65183968971417]
Debate portals and similar web platforms constitute one of the main text sources in computational argumentation research.
In this paper, we present a precision-oriented approach to detecting such irrelevant text in a semi-supervised way.
In the existing args.me corpus with 400k argumentative texts, our approach detects almost 87k irrelevant sentences, at a precision of 0.97 according to manual evaluation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-11-03T15:45:42Z) - The Discussion Tracker Corpus of Collaborative Argumentation [2.800857580710507]
The Discussion Tracker corpus was collected in American high school English classes.
The corpus consists of 29 multi-party discussions of English literature transcribed from 985 minutes of audio.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-05-22T18:27:28Z) - Commonsense Evidence Generation and Injection in Reading Comprehension [57.31927095547153]
We propose a Commonsense Evidence Generation and Injection framework in reading comprehension, named CEGI.
The framework injects two kinds of auxiliary commonsense evidence into comprehensive reading to equip the machine with the ability of rational thinking.
Experiments on the CosmosQA dataset demonstrate that the proposed CEGI model outperforms the current state-of-the-art approaches.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-05-11T16:31:08Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.